| 14 Oct 2025 |
 K900 | Like the endpoint will probably be an FOD | 16:28:28 |
| K900 | And FODs accept both | 16:28:34 |
 raitobezarius | Do you know when would you like this to happen? | 16:28:35 |
| K900 | And should continue to accept both IMO | 16:28:39 |
 emily | well, we are here because convertHash is not desired and I said the main way I can imagine decomposing it is to split out SRI/<hash>:<algo> parsing, and to split conversion/deconversion using NUL bytes in strings | 16:28:38 |
| K900 | Like all the uses of convertHash I'm seeing right now are "convert to SRI and shove it in a FOD" | 16:29:17 |
| * raitobezarius is not going to debate the need of convertHash or not for end user code | 16:28:59 |
| emily | I'm ambivalent. I'm not really trying to push for it. I'm just noting that it's something that comes up fairly often and that we've had Nixpkgs hash divergence from attempts at feature detecting it | 16:29:18 |
| emily | the demand is not from me, but there is demand :) | 16:29:23 |
| K900 | Which is objectively useless | 16:29:37 |
| K900 | And could just be "sha256:" + hash | 16:29:43 |
| raitobezarius | OK, I wondered if you as a Nixpkgs core team person, had any idea of a timeline given the demand | 16:29:45 |
| raitobezarius | But unknown timeline works for me, I will register this as low priority (aka when I'm bored) | 16:29:55 |
| emily | sha256 = …; is certainly likely to be banned in Nixpkgs at some point I think | 16:29:57 |
| emily | since people have already put work into treewides/warnings for it | 16:30:06 |
| K900 | It doesn't have to be passed in as sha256 = | 16:30:09 |
| K900 | hash = "sha256:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" works | 16:30:30 |
